What aspects of faculty compensation policies and practices at NDMU do you feel are effective or well-executed?

Many respondents said they could not identify any positive features of the current compensation system. The absence of effective aspects was framed as evidence that policies and practices are missing, poorly designed, poorly executed, or invisible to faculty.

A small group praised generous PTO for 12‑month contracts and/or the tuition exchange program and suggested that these help offset low salaries. A few faculty noted that payroll is accurate/on time, and a handful acknowledged recent across‑the‑board bumps, albeit while emphasizing they’re far short of actual cost of living increases.

What specific concerns do you have about faculty compensation policies and practices at NDMU?

Respondents frequently described years with no raises or minimal ~1% adjustments that fail to match inflation. Promised cost of living adjustments are reported as symbolic, delayed, inconsistent, or cancelled, effectively cutting salaries over time.

Faculty consider their salaries to be low in comparison with nearby institutions and with national data for select disciplines. The Baltimore/DC region’s high living costs amplify the perceived inadequacy of current pay levels and negatively impact faculty recruitment and retention.

Faculty reported that newer hires can out-earn long‑serving colleagues at higher ranks, and that demographic gaps persist. Salary progression tied to promotion is so small that compression is entrenched and that motivation to engage in the promotion process is decreased.

Many believe compensation decisions are made behind closed doors, with individuals negotiating better pay through persistence rather than policy. This fosters distrust and perceptions of favoritism.

People described undertaking substantial unpaid or underpaid responsibilities without stipends, or with token compensation. Examples include summer chair work, accreditation tasks, remediation, and advising. Adjunct and overload rates were reported as very low in comparison to nearby institutions.

Multiple comments contrasted stagnant faculty pay with substantial increases for senior leaders. This disparity was cited as demoralizing and inconsistent with institutional mission.

Do you have additional input on a faculty compensation philosophy at NDMU for consideration?

Faculty want clear criteria, shared governance, and accessible information about how salaries are set and adjusted. Transparency is framed as essential to rebuild trust and address perceived inequities.

Teaching is only part of the job: advising, service, program creation, accreditation work, and research were all flagged as compensable labor. The philosophy should explicitly value these contributions to prevent invisible workload creep.

Respondents argued for automatic, inflation‑indexed increases and promotion raises that actually change one’s financial situation. Merit pay is welcomed when it is substantive and distributed via fair, well‑defined processes.

One camp supports market‑based differentials anchored in credible, discipline‑specific data. Another urges minimizing or eliminating differentials, arguing all disciplines contribute equally to mission and should share rank‑based bands.

Some advocate periodic loyalty bumps to recognize institutional commitment and reduce turnover. Others caution that time served shouldn’t trump contributions or be used to reward disengaged faculty.

Are there any specific institutions that you consider particularly important for inclusion in the faculty compensation benchmark group?

• Stevenson University (10)
• Goucher College (9)
• Loyola University Maryland (9)
• Towson University (6)
• McDaniel College (3)
• Morgan State University (3)
• University of Maryland - Baltimore County (3)
• Georgian Court University (2)
• Hood College (2)

Single mentions: American University, Baltimore City Community College, Belmont University, California Northstate University, Carlow University, Catholic University of America, Coppin State University, Drew University, Drexel University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Gettysburg College, Loma Linda University, Manchester University, Massachusettes College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Mount St. Mary’s University (MD), Notre Dame College (note: closed), Oglethorpe University, Rider University, Roosevelt University, Shenandoah University, Thomas Jefferson University, Touro University - California, University of Maryland - Baltimore, University of Maryland - Eastern Shore, University of the Sciences (note: merged into Saint Joseph’s University), Western New England University, Western University of Health Sciences, Wilkes University

Grey text denotes public institutions.

Many responses provided categorical suggestions; see BENCH-5 for summary.

Are there any specific institutions that you think should not be included in the faculty compensation benchmark group?

• Community College of Baltimore County
• Harford Community College
• Hood College
• Johns Hopkins University
• Mount St. Joseph University
• Mount St. Mary’s University (MD)
• Thomas More University
• University of Findlay
• University of Maryland - College Park
• Wilkes University

Grey text denotes public institutions.

Many responses provided categorical suggestions; see BENCH-5 for summary.

Do you have additional input on faculty compensation benchmarking at NDMU for consideration?

Benchmark to institutions in high‑cost, urban Mid‑Atlantic markets (Baltimore/DC and similar metros) or adjust salaries for COL explicitly. Schools in rural/low‑cost regions, or far from Maryland, should be down‑weighted or excluded.

Faculty want benchmarks that match NDMU’s teaching loads, class sizes, advising responsibilities, accreditation work, and summer/chair administrative duties. Contract type (9/10 vs. 12‑month) must be separated so annualized pay is comparable. Institutions with lighter loads or different role mixes should be adjusted or excluded.

A number of faculty advocate for the use of national professional association data (e.g., AACP) and comparisons with institutions that share specialized graduate/doctoral programs and accreditation demands. They argue that generic datasets (like undifferentiated CUPA pulls) or institutions without similar professional programs obscure true market rates.

Benchmarking should track years in rank, salary compression/inversion, demographic gaps, and turnover. Results should drive scheduled equity adjustments so long‑serving or underpaid groups are brought to parity.

Faculty want a clearly published rationale, a single core comparison group (with optional market/aspirational tiers), and consistent use over time. Rotating or opaque lists, especially those perceived as chosen to fit the budget, undermine trust and the value of benchmarking.

Please provide any additional thoughts or suggestions regarding faculty compensation structure at NDMU —whether about the balance between flexibility and rigidity, the role of discipline differentials, or any other related considerations—in the box below.

Many favor a floor that guarantees equity and prevents compression. Deviations should require objective justification and be visible to faculty.

Others advocated a middle path: set ranges, then allow targeted adjustments for market pressures, exceptional performance, or added duties. The emphasis is on clear rules for when and how flexibility applies.

Supporters say high‑demand health fields will walk without competitive pay. Opponents argue all faculty chose academia and should be treated equally; differentials sow division.

Faculty are open to merit incentives if the process is fair, evidence‑based, and workload‑sensitive. Without robust evaluation, merit pay risks favoritism.

V. Flat‑dollar raises, longevity steps, equity adjustments (n ≈ 9) Several suggested flat increases instead of percentages to help lower‑paid faculty. Regular step increases tied to service could combat compression and reward retention.